Amendment of pleadings

The object of pleadings is to define the issues, not to penalize a party for a bona fide clerical error.

Facts: Respondents/plaintiffs instituted a civil suit for declaration, cancellation of document and permanent / mandatory injunction regarding suit land

Due to an alleged typographical/clerical mistake petitioners/defendant moved an application under O.VI, R.17, C.P.C. to amend the written statement, which was dismissed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, hence, the writ petition

Issue: “Whether correction of an asserted clerical mis-description in the written statement, from “exchange deed” to “sale deed” (and allied mutation particulars), constituted a permissible amendment under O.VI, R.17, C.P.C. necessary to determine the real controversy, or an impermissible change in the nature of defence?”

Held: Reference to the Exchange Deed appeared only as an in advertent typographical error in certain paragraphs of the written statement

No new plea was being introduced nor any previous admission withdrawn; rather, the petitioners merely sought to correct the mis-description of the document to avoid future ambiguity

The respondents/plaintiffs could not be prejudiced thereby, as the factual position remained unchanged

Impugned concurrent orders passed by the courts below were set aside

The petitioners' application under O.VI, R.17, C.P.C. for amendment in the written statement was allowed

Present constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Amendment of pleadings should ordinarily be allowed if it is necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties and does not change the complexion of the case or cause prejudice to the opposite side

The jurisdiction to allow amendment is wide and intended to advance the cause of justice rather than to defeat it

Therefore, the proposed amendment if essential for clarification of pleadings and does not alter the fundamental character of the case, it should be permitted even at an advanced stage of the proceedings.

Contention of the petitioner was that the proposed amendment would introduce a new cause of action and change the whole complexion of the suit

Validity

High Court after analyzing various decisions highlighted some important factors, which were only illustrative and not exhaustive, that could be kept in consideration while dealing with the application for amendment; they were (i) the intention of the applicant seeking to amend pleadings; (ii) the question of limitation if applicable; (iii) refusal or acceptance of amendment should not lead to injustice or injury to opponent side; (iv) efforts should be made to avoid multiplicity of litigation; (v) the nature of the suit and cause of action originally set-up, and (vi) if the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determination of the real question in controversy between the parties provided subject matter of suit remains unchanged

Predecessor-in-interest of respondents essentially sought relief that as per mutation he was the owner of the disputed property and the earlier round of litigation initiated in the year 1970, which culminated into passing of a decree, which was not considered by the revenue authorities

Amendment as to addition of word "declaration" in the heading of the amended suit, which was already dealt with in detail, the proposed amendments related to those orders or proceedings of the revenue which were allegedly in defiance of the decree already passed and that hardly had any bearing on the subject matter or the nature of the plaint

High Court held that two courts below had not erred in accepting the application for amendment in the plaint and upheld the decisions of the lower courts

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

During pendency of Constitutional petition, petitioner filed an application for amendment of petition by impleading a necessary party as respondent

Validity

Mere delay in filing of such like applications was not a good ground for refusal of the same

Proposed amendment should not introduce a new and changed case/claim and it should not change the nature, complexion and cause of action

Allowing or refusing to allow amendment of pleadings is an act, which goes to the root of the case, because the parties cannot lead evidence beyond their pleadings and if provisions of O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C. are not construed and exercised liberally, it would jeopardize case of the parties

High Court directed petitioner to file amended Constitutional petition under O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C.

Application was allowed, in circumstances.

Where defect can be remedied by allowing amendments, Court should liberally exercise such powers but within the parameters prescribed by O.VI, R.17, C.P.C.

While exercising such powers Court must identify defect and record its satisfaction that the defect is formal and does not go to root of the case.

Order VIII, R.9 of the Code, 1908, restricts filing of further pleading, subsequent to written statement without leave of the Court, unless the written statement contains a set-off

Order VI, R. 17 of the Code, 1908, empowers the Court to permit amendment on the terms that are just.

Court has been empowered under O.VI, R.17 C.P.C. to allow either party to alter or amend pleadings at any stage of proceedings in the manner provided, for the purpose of determining real questions in controversy between parties.

Amendment to plaint by way of addition of details of sale agreements of petitioner / plaintiff made with and/or payments made to respondents / defendant and their alleged refusal of respondents to perform their obligations toward petitioner / plaintiff and relief arising therefrom did not change cause of action as alleged in the suit

Proposed amendments could at the best be described as an 'amplification' of cause of action which did not change main substance, nature, complexion or character of the suit

Alleged refusal of respondents to perform their respective obligations under the Compromise Deed as per Explanation to O.II, R.2, C.P.C. would be deemed to constitute same cause of action as the one alleged by way of the subject suit

At the very least such would constitute a cause of action which was part of same transaction or series of transactions as involved in the suit which could be joined under O.II, R.3, C.P.C.

Relief arising from such alleged cause of action could be sought in pending suit so as to afford ground for final decision upon all subjects in dispute and prevent further litigation as per the objective enshrined in O.II, R.1, C.P.C.

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside order passed by Trial Court and application of petitioner/plaintiff under O.VI, R.17, C.P.C. for proposed amendments was allowed

High Court directed petitioner / plaintiff to file amended memorandum of plaint as per proposed amendments whereafter Trial Court would allow respondents / defendants an opportunity to amend their written statements if they so requested

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner/plaintiff was aggrieved of order passed by Lower Appellate Court declining to amend pleadings and setting aside of judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in favour of petitioner/plaintiff

Validity

While deciding application for amendment of pleadings, Court was to keep in view the interest of justice and was to allow the case to run on correct lines for decision of real controversy

Amendment could be allowed while ignoring delay even at any stage of the proceedings in trial and in certain cases, amendments were permitted at the stage of appeal or even in revisional jurisdiction

In view of beneficial rule, proposed amendment was expedient for the purpose of determining real questions in controversy between the parties and it was not changing the nature of pleadings

Occasion for amendment only arose upon acceptance of application of respondent/defendant for bringing a new document on record

Petitioner's/plaintiff's request for amendment in such situation could not have been refused

High Court allowed petitioner/plaintiff to amend the pleading and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh after setting aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below

Revision was allowed accordingly.

High Court set aside orders passed by two Courts below and allowed petitioner to amend his pleadings in terms of his application for amendment which he filed before Trial Court

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

During pendency of suit appellant/Bank filed application for amendment in plaint, which was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court by holding that since principal debtor-company had already been wound up by the order of High Court, therefore, appellant/Bank could not be allowed to enlarge its claim against more respondents

Parties could not be permitted to go beyond what they had set up in their pleadings

During judicial proceedings neither any party could be allowed to adduce evidence in support of a contention not pleaded by it nor could the decision of case rest on such evidence

It was discretion of Court to permit or refuse amendment in pleadings

Court was not bound to allow amendment in all cases

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Single Judge of High Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Court under O.VI, R.17, C.P.C., is mandated to grant amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings.

Appeal was directed against the order passed by Single Judge of High Court whereby an application for discarding the amended written statement was dismissed

Validity

Amendment in the plaint was allowed whereby the plaintiff was allowed to file amended plaint

In consequence of the amended plaint, an amended written statement was also filed which according to the plaintiff consisted of inconsistent pleas as compared to the earlier written statement, therefore, the plaintiff moved an application for discarding the written statement

Perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant showed that certain objections were raised, which undoubtedly went beyond the scope of the plaint in as much as the newly added party i.e. Province of Sindh had challenged the relationship of landlord and tenant besides raising other important jurisdictional issues

Issue of relationship had already been decided by the Rent Controller conclusively

Issues raised in the written statement filed by the Province of Sindh were alien to the matter pending before the Court

Proceedings which had already taken place including recording of the evidence of the plaintiff in presence of the then relevant party could not be just brushed aside in view of the newly filed written statement, which, if allowed to replace the earlier filed written statement, would necessitate de novo proceedings which would amount of abuse of process of law and court and thus it could not be allowed

Appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

Plaintiffs assailed declaration of gifts of immovable properties made by their parents in favour of their deceased brother in his life time

After death of brother of plaintiffs succession certificate was issued in favour of parents regarding suit properties

Validity

Gift was a registered document which was not challenged by plaintiffs on the ground of any fraud or misrepresentation by beneficiary in acquiring the gift

Nor the donor (father of plaintiffs) at relevant time was otherwise not legally competent to execute gift to his son owning to some legal disability

No amendment of pleadings could be allowed in disposed of matter

In disposed of succession petition only extension of Letter of Administration was permissible under S.376 of Succession Act, 1925, on subsequent discovery of any other estate of deceased which inadvertently or for any reason could not be mentioned in original succession petition

Succession certificate could also be revoked on the grounds provided in S.383 of Succession Act, 1925

No concept of amendment of disposed of memo of petition for Letter of Administration in respect of one identified deceased on subsequent death of another person who was legal heir of the deceased whose petition had been disposed of prior to the death of the other person

Under the law of succession, it was not permissible that a common petition / application was entertained for grant of succession certificate / Letter of Administration pertaining to assets of more than one deceased particularly when legal heir of two deceased were not common, irrespective of the fact that assets were inherited by one of them from the other person

Suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

If proposed amendment was to be allowed then neither nature of suit was to be changed nor fresh cause of action would be introduced

If there was any defect or error in the proceeding in a suit then same could be amended at any time

Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was set aside and application for amendment of plaint was allowed

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

Legal requirement as contemplated by O.VII, R.3, C.P.C., obliged the plaintiff to mention the description of the property to sufficiently identify the disputed property either by boundaries or numbers in the record of settlement of survey

No ambiguity or difficulty was to exist in locating and determining the disputed property

To ascertain the disputed property with exactitude the court must make all efforts and while performing such duty, the court could call the parties to file better statements, amend the plaint and even require the parties to produce such evidence

To ask for an amendment was an inherent and vested right of a plaintiff subject to two conditions i.e. (i) the proposed amendment would not alter and change the character and complexion of the suit and (ii) all such amendments would be made as might be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and such right was governed by the provisions of O.VI, R. 17, C.P.C.

Any defect in the form of a suit would not culminate in dismissal of suit because all the rules of procedure were meant to foster the cause of justice

Court was bound to consider the request of amendment in a broader perspective and remain quite liberal and flexible while exercising jurisdiction under O.VI, R.17, C.P.C.

Record revealed that, in the present case, the amendment of pleadings was sought and accorded on grounds to lessen and reduce the area of disputed property and identify the reduced area by mentioning the boundaries of the disputed property

Plaintiff could reduce, restrict or lessen his claim i.e. withdraw from a large area or amount and confine the claim to a smaller area or lesser amount

Latter portion of the O.VI, R. 17, C.P.C., cast a duty upon court to grant permission for amendment as a matter of right if it was essential and inevitable for the resolution of real controversy and just decision of the case

Application for review was dismissed being devoid of force.

Words used in the earlier written statement were to be deemed to be admission on the part of defendant and amendment whereof would not only change the entire defence but also amount to withdraw the admission made which was not permissible under the law

Defendant had moved application for amendment to bring his case in consonance with the provisions of S. 5(2) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987 and subsequently moved an application for rejection of plaint on the ground that agreement to sell was not pre-emptible transaction

Court was to determine the fate of document/transaction which was subject matter of the suit

Application for amendment was not maintainable in circumstances

No illegality, material irregularity or any jurisdictional defect had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Vendees moved application under O. VII, R. 7, C.P.C. for rejection of plaint on the ground that "place" of alleged performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat was not mentioned in the plaint

Pre-emptors moved application for amendment of plaint

Non-mentioning of place of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat

Effect

Petitioners/vendees contended that mentioning of place of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat in the plaint was sine qua non and amendment of plaint was equal to rectification of the plaint and Trial Court had rightly rejected the plaint of pre-emptors while appellate court had wrongly allowed pre-emptors to amend their claim

Pre-emptors/respondents contended that place of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat was inadvertently missed in the plaint so order of appellate court allowing to amend the plaint was justified

Validity

Mentioning of particulars as to "date", "time" and "place" of making talbs are sine qua non for a successful pre-emptory action, and failure would invariably be fatal for the pre-emptor

Respondents/pre-emptors had accepted their non-performance of the requisite detail of "place" where Talb-e-Muwathibat had been performed and the essential principle of "place" when missing in the plaint, they had to face the consequences for the omission

Trial Court while evaluating the pleadings had considered that in presence of said material defect the cause of action to the pre-emptor had not accrued and in such circumstances the further proceedings in the matter was merely a futile exercise and thus the plaint was rightly rejected

Effect of rectification of the plaint on the basis of proposed amendment of the pleadings had taken the pivotal position in the present case

Amendment in the pleadings was sought by the respondents when the petitioners on the basis of said fatal aspect filed application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., therefore, its insertion in the plaint was clearly visualized that application was filed for filling-up the lacuna and if said amendment was allowed same would be against the spirit of S. 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Appellate court allowing the respondents to amend the pleadings to make-up the deficiency/shortcoming in the suit was not sustainable as the same would change nature and complexion of the suit which was originally filed by the respondents, therefore, view rendered by the appellate court was not sustainable

High Court observed that appellate court while allowing the proposed amendment acted in exercise of its jurisdiction with grave illegality and material irregularity on the basis of erroneous and unreasonable view

Exercise of revisional jurisdiction was meant for correction of illegal orders, in circumstances, no other option was left with the High Court except to allow the revision

Impugned judgment and decree passed by appellate court was set aside while judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was upheld

Revision was allowed accordingly.

When superior right of pre-emption was not pleaded in suit, then party could not be allowed to lead evidence on such point which had not been pleaded

If evidence was on the file on a point which was not pleaded, such evidence could not be looked into

If permission to amend the plaint was allowed, then parties would come to the point at zero level i.e. on the position when suit was filed and a new trial would start which was not permissible at such stage as new ground of pre-emption could not be added after period of limitation.

Contention of plaintiff was that rights pleaded in plaint could not be proved by plaintiff, therefore, an application had been moved that plaintiff be permitted to assert the right on basis of "Mouza Shareek" instead of "Khewat-dar" by amending its plea

Validity

Suit was filed on 20-10-1969 and plaintiff had filed application for amendment of plaint after 32 years of filing of suit of pre-emption

Validity

In ordinary cases, it was grace of the court to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage

In chequered history of the present case, suit was filed on basis of grounds mentioned in plaint to be having superior right of pre-emption by plaintiff and now it was stated that grounds mentioned in the plaint, plaintiff could not adduce evidence to prove the same and plaintiff also submitted that on basis of ground of superior right of pre-emption, he did not press the same and main thrust was now upon the amendment of plaint

Amendment of plaint could not be granted when equity was not in favour of plaintiff

When on basis of Mouza Shareek no right was claimed before 31-07-1986 and admission of plaintiff that on basis of superior right of pre-emption claimed in suit no decree could be passed, then after claiming new right through amendment in plaint, no decree after 31-07-1986 could be passed in a pre-emption suit which was filed in the year 1969, therefore, grant or refusal of amendment was meaningless

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Amendment in pleadings to be liberally granted provided it did not alter the complexion of suit; proposed amendment was necessary for just decision and resolved real controversy between the parties; amendment application had not been filed with mala fide intention and by allowing the said application for amendment the case would not un-necessarily be prolonged

Plaintiff wanted to add further amount in the suit for work he had done later on and the material which he had collected for construction

Proposed amendment appeared to be just and necessary for avoiding the multiplicity of the proceedings

Party should be at liberty to add relief by way of amendment at the later stage which was available to him at the time of filing of suit

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

During pendency of appeal, plaintiff filed application under O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C. for amendment in plaint for inclusion of description of part of suit property, which had been left inadvertently

Appellate court dismissed appeal along with said application for amendment on ground of delay

Validity

Amendment of pleadings might be allowed in such a manner and on such a terms as it might be just

All such amendments would be made as might be necessary for purpose of determining real questions of controversy between parties

Amendments which were found necessary to determine real questions in controversy between parties relevant and necessary to proposition under consideration had to be allowed by court

Amendment might not be allowed when the same was likely to change nature of suit or cause of action or both and in cases where valid right had accrued to other party before the amendment

Amendment in pleadings could be allowed at any stage and delay, in itself, was no ground to refuse application for amendment unless the same was likely to cause injustice to any party

Ends of justice were paramount consideration for deciding application for amendment of pleadings

If amendment was likely to impair judicial process or cause abuse of process of law, it would defeat purpose of provision of O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C.

In the present case, if proposed amendment was allowed, the same would not change cause of action or subject matter and would not cause prejudice to opposite party

Amendment could be allowed to seek consequential relief arising from cause of action originally incorporated in plaint

Amendment could also be allowed to add additional relief available to plaintiff even before higher courts

Judgment and decree of courts below were set aside, application for amendment was accepted and case was remanded to trial court for decision afresh after amendment of pleadings

Revision petition was accepted in circumstances.

Amendment in the pleadings could be allowed if same was necessary and it did not change the complexion of suit or the nature of the relief sought.

Court might at any stage of proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms that all such amendments should be made for determining the real questions in controversy

Party should not take up a new plea to be introduced in its pleadings

Amendment should be allowed liberally which did not affect the cause of action or nature of the suit.

Amendment in the pleadings could be allowed if nature of suit in so far as its cause of action, complexion and character of the case did not change

Amendment should not cause embarrassment to the other party.

Plaintiff was directed to incorporate the proposed amendment within the specified period.

Court had power to allow either of the parties to alter or amend the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings subject to the condition that amendment proposed was necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties.

Appellate court accepted appeal of defendant on the ground that it was a case of specific performance of contract and declaratory suit was not maintain-able

Validity

Matter in dispute rested on agreement to sell and it was incumbent upon plaintiff to file suit for specific performance of contract

High Court under its revisional jurisdiction and Appellate Court in appellate jurisdiction could convert relief in view of averments made in the plaint

Evidence adduced by parties was sufficient to prove sale and delivery of possession

Trial court, Appellate Court and Revisional Court could suo moto direct amendment of plaint without any application by plaintiff and the courts had powers to allow such amendment even when legal right had accrued in favour of other party

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Amendment could be sought at any stage of proceedings but same was subject to certain apparent formal defect in the plaint.

After birth of child application was moved for arraying the minor in line of plaintiffs by amending plaint which was accepted

Petitioner assailed order allowing the amendment on grounds that no procedure had been provided for amendment

Principle

No provisions for amendment of pleadings were provided but there existed no prohibition or absolute bar on powers of Family Court to allow any party to amend pleadings

Family Court can allow any procedure not expressly barred under law for final disposal of case

When parentage was not being disputed there was no bar for impleadment of minor in suit for maintenance as party

Application for amendment after birth of child was also held to be continuation of stance taken in suit for recovery of maintenance and writ petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Appellant/Vendee challenged decree granted by Appellate Court below in favour of pre-emptor by filing revision before Chief Court

Pending disposal of said revision, vendee/appellant submitted an application under O.VI, R.17, C.P.C., read with S.151, C.P.C. for amendment of the joint written statement

Chief Court refused to allow the amendment

Validity

Pleadings submitted by both the parties to the suit had been verified on oath

Chief Court had properly refused to exercise jurisdiction in refusing the amendment of pleadings, as the amendment was meant to establish absolutely a new case of defence totally inconsistent to the admission made in the written statement on oath

Written statement had been submitted jointly by both the defendants and had admitted the subject matter to be ancestral property which was held by respondent/vendor as his share, but respondent did not join the new plea made by the appellant/vendee through the application for amendment of pleadings

Revision petition, sub judice before the Chief Court was directed to be decided on merits.

Provisions of O.VI, R. 17, C.P.C. were permissive in nature and same could be used in order to foster justice and not the in-justice.

Defendants could not justify that said facts were in the knowledge of plaintiff at the time of filing suit or said facts were in existence at that time

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Factors essential to be considered by courts.

Contention of pre-emptor was that where law permitted amendment in pleadings in view of the provision contained in Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C., a prayer for amendment in plaint could not be declined summarily without attending to the circumstances necessitating same

Validity

Necessity of mentioning particulars (date, time and place of making Talbs) had emanated from the statute itself

Supreme Court observed that a plaint in a pre-emption case under the latest dispensation was more like an F.I.R. of a criminal case, therefore, no omission howsoever fatal could be allowed to be supplied by means of an amendment; that if amendments were allowed, it would open room for additions, after-thoughts and improvements which would go ad infinitum, and that neither a pre-emption case nor a criminal case with such modus operandi would admit of an end in the mundane existence of the parties

No error had been committed by the Supreme Court by declining prayer of amendment of plaint

Review petition was dismissed accordingly.

Intention of the party seeking the amendment was a relevant factor for allowing or refusing the request.

Courts were to exercise their power and authority of allowing amendments liberally, however, keeping in view that proposed amendment(s) was/were expedient for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, and that same should not alter the nature of the suit or the defence

Court had to keep in mind that amendment sought/proposed must not be tainted with dishonesty of purpose; that it was not meant to withdraw and resile from an admission made in the pleadings of the parties; that it should not cause prejudice to the opposite party, particularly to deprive opposite side of a benefit attained by it from the evidence adduced on record by the party asking/seeking amendment

Conduct and motive of the party and object/purpose behind the request for amendment must also be kept in mind by the Court.

While allowing amendment of pleadings, the courts should keep in view the admissions, which had been made by the parties therein (pleadings)

Amendment should not be allowed, where it tantamounted to the withdrawal of an admission or where it obliterated an admission.

Illustration.

Such amendments, if found necessary for determination of real questions in issue between parties, could be allowed at any stage of proceedings

Word "proceedings" as used in 0. VI, R. 17, CPC could not be confined to proceedings of suit alone, but would include that of Appellate/Revisional Court and of the Supreme Court

Amendment emanating from facts mentioned in plaint could not be refused

Non-allowing genuine and proper amendment in pleadings would create legal problems for applicant under O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. and constructive res judicata

Suit for specific performance could be changed into a suit for declaration and vice versa

Nature of suit of permanent injunction would not stand altered by adding therein relief for declaration

Principles.

Vendee's application for amendment of plaint for seeking relief of declaration of title on basis of sale in his favour by vendor

Validity

Amendment in pleadings, if essential for determination of real questions in issue between parties, could be allowed at any stage of proceedings

Non-allowing of genuine and proper amendment would create legal problems for applicant under O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. and constructive res judicata

Amendment emanating from facts mentioned in plaint could not be refused

Suit for specific performance could be changed into a suit for declaration and vice versa

Addition of relief for declaration in suit for permanent injunction would not alter nature of suit

Death of vendor's father had made vendor true and lawful owner of suit property

Plaintiff in the present suit could not be refused relief of declaration as prayed for through amendment application

Allowing amendment prayed for by plaintiff would save him from future legal complications under O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. and constructive res judicata

Plaintiff was allowed to file amended plaint in circumstances.

Formal defect in pleadings, if bona fide and occurred due to mistake of fact or misrepresentation, should be allowed to be corrected by amendment.

Petitioner was arrested on allegation of embezzlement from respondent Bank and criminal investigation ended in favour of the petitioner, after which petitioner filed declaratory suit against the respondent bank

Amount equal to the alleged embezzled amount had been deposited in the respondent bank by relatives of the petitioner

Suit of petitioner was dismissed by Trial Court and appeal against the same was dismissed by Appellate Court

Petitioner had contended in the suit that he was the owner of the amount deposited in the respondent bank

Contention of respondent bank was that suit for declaration was not maintainable as consequential relief of recovery of said amount was not prayed for

Held, that merely because a consequential relief for the recovery of amount in question had not been prayed for, did not render the plaint liable to be rejected as prayer of consequential relief could be added to the plaint through amendment application at any stage of the proceedings

Respondent bank in their written statement had admitted that deposit had been made by legal heirs of the petitioner

Order of Trial Court rejecting the plaint at the stage of dismissing the ad interim injunction was patently illegal

Case was remanded to Trial Court with the observation that the petitioner could move an application for the amendment of the plaint for adding further consequential relief, which may be available to him in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case

Revision was accepted, accordingly.

Amendment, if necessary for deciding dispute between parties and not likely to cause prejudice to rival party, should be allowed liberally for true administration of justice.

Grievance of pre-emptor was that Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court did not allow him to amend his plaint: by including date, time and place of making of Talb-i-Muwathibat in the plaint

Validity

Right of pre-emption was very feeble right and in order to succeed in the same a pre-emptor had to fulfil requisite Talbs as envisaged in section 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Pre-emptor, in the present case, did not disclose date, time and place of making Talb-i-Muwathibat, which was fatal in pre-emption suit

In pre-emption suit it was mandatory for pre-emptor to mention requisite particulars of Talbs in plaint and any omission in such regard was fatal and was not defect which could be cured through filing application under O.VI, rule 17, C.P.C.

Trial Court was fully justified in declining application of pre-emptor for amendment of plaint, which was rightly maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Pre-emptor failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in orders warranting interference by High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Provisions of O. VI, R. 17, C.P.C. were to be construed liberally, however, defendants could not be allowed to abuse the law of procedure by resiling from the admission made by their deceased father in the written statement or to put up a new and inconsistent defence

Admission made by a party in the pleadings could not be revoked without permission of the court

Since on the basis of admission in the written statement a valuable right had accrued in favour of opposite party, therefore, proposed amendment based on ulterior motive could not be allowed.

Plaintiff filed an application for impleading a person as defendant on the ground that he was Benami of one of the defendants and also sought amendment in pleadings

Validity

Primary object of impleading proper party in suit was to avoid multiplicity of legal proceedings and to determine effectually and finally all questions involved in proceedings

Term "questions involved" used in 0. I, R. 10(2), C.P.C. included all matters, material to a proper decision of case but object of making such persons party was to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and such person must, therefore, be a person whose interest was likely to be affected even though no relief was claimed against him

As such the same did not extend to persons who had no interest which was likely to be affected by proceedings

Court should not drag any party in the array of suit to suffer rigours of trial unnecessarily

Court had wide discretion in the matter of joinder of parties; any person who was neither necessary nor proper party could be joined at the convenience of plaintiff

Court had to ensure that such amendment would not harm opposite party by destroying a right already accrued to it by omission to include proposed claim or ground of attack in original suit

Leave to amendment could be granted if amendment was made without injustice to the other side

Amendment must not injure the other party, so that he could not be compensated in cost

Where a period of limitation had commenced since accrual of a particular case, amendment would not be allowed, which had the effect of adding such a cause of action notwithstanding the fact that limitation period in relation to it had. not expired when writ in the action was issued

High Court declined to allow proposed amendments and/or impleading of new person in suit as defendant

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Application for amendment in title of plaint showed that neither plaintiff was changed therein nor any new party was added or character of suit disturbed

Misdescription in title of plaint appeared to be bona fide typographical error, which could be corrected by amendment in its title even with red link and such amendment would not involve substitution or addition of parties

No legal infirmity was found in judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court, which was well reasoned and did not warrant interference by High Court

Revision application was dismissed in circumstances.

O. VI, r. 17 and S. 107(2)- Amendment of pleadings-Suit for recovery of amount due on a bill-Amendment in date of presentation of bill whether rightly allowed by appellate Court- Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court.